The Statement 'God Exists' is Rationally Justifiable.
>>> If any of you wish to debate me, please let me know in the comments. & it would be nice if you can also include the line of reasoning you'll be going with.
The statement "God Exists" is rationally justifiable, in the sense that, the Positive Existence of God must be either:
- Deductively True.
- Inductively True.
- Empirically Unfalsifiable, though Rationally Expected.
- Logically Unprovable, though can be Rationally Expected.
> Everything is itself. Or: A = A.
> Everything can not both be & not be. Or: A = not-(not-A).
> Everything must either be or not be. Or: If A & not-A, then A True, Or not-A True.
> Causality is - inductively - True. Or: for every event A there is a - inductively - necessary event B, such that, if B then A.
- I will argue that whether the Law of Causality is necessary or not, there must exist & Uncaused Efficient First Cause.
- I will also argue that an Uncaused Cause can not be Contingent nor Plural.
- I will also argue that an Uncaused Cause is Empirically Unfalsifiable.
- I will define God as the Singular Non-Contingent Essential Existence Ucaused Efficient First Cause.
- I will also argue that, regardless of the correlation between Formal Logic & Cosmology, the existence of God can still be Rationally Justifiable.
=> I will then conclude that the statement "God Exists" is rationally justifiable.
* This set of arguments may be changed, to which I may add new ones or replace the current ones with other ones. However, the guidelines will stay more or less the same.
> My opponent have to prove that the Positive Existence of God is all the following:
- not-Deductively True.
- not-Inductively True.
- Empirically Falsifiable, Or not-Rationally Expected.
- Logically Provable or Disprovable, Or can not be Rationally Expected.
=> By disproving the arguments I am gonna advance.
First Round: Acceptence.
- Rounds: 5.
- Time to Argue: 72h.
- Max: 10,000 characters.
I thank Yassine for the challenge and accept this debate. Note that Yassine's definition of God is:
"Singular Non-Contingent Essential Existence Uncaused Efficient First Cause."
Thus, as Pro proposes, I will be arguing for the antithesis in this debate, that the statement "God Exists" (as defined) is not rationally justifiable.
Best of luck to Pro.
I extend my thanks to Con & I apologise for not being able to do my part in time, an old friend came to visit me last night from another city & he is now staying with me. & so, I have been struggling to find the time to write enough, so as to allow Con to formulate his arguments.
Existence = Attribute subsequent to which an entity exists, & without which it doesn’t.
Essence = Attribute through which an entity is itself, & without which it isn’t.
Universe = ensemble of existent entities.
Eg. a Circle has the quality of being a circular, therefore, the essence of a circle is its circular form. But a Circle does not exist unless existence was attributed to it.
Event = caused entity, or existent entity.
Cause = a Cause of an entity B is a necessary event A without which B isn’t an Event.
Effect = B is an effect of A is equivalent to: A is the cause of B.
Existence is necessary to itself, otherwise it wouldn’t be. Therefore, an Essential (necessary) Existence is necessary.
The Existence of the Universe either is the Essential Existence, or isn’t. In case it isn’t, then it necessitates an Essential Existence. In both cases, the Essential Existence is the Uncaused First Cause, as per the definition.
An Essential Existence can not necessitate its non-existence, non-contradiction. Therefore, an Essential Existence is True unconditionally (‘eternal’), & thus non-Contingent.
The Existence of the Universe is either eternal or not, in case it isn’t, then it can not be the Essential Existence, as per the last point. In case it is, then:
- If the Universe is ever changing then it must change from one dynamic state to a distinct other or to a static state indefinitely. Thus, the sum of its states can not be infinite, otherwise for any given real state there will have been an infinite changes happening before that state, & subsequently the said state wouldn’t exist, absurd! (same thing can be done by taking any random series of Events in the Universe). Therefore, the Universe in this case can not be eternal.
- If the Universe is not ever changing, then it must have been static eternally before it changed. In that case, if the Existence of the Universe is the Essential Existence, then what caused the existence of change? If the Existence of the Universe generated the change, & it alone is the Essential Existence & thus the change isn’t. Therefore, after the change & since only the essentially existent static eternal Universe is the Essential Existence, the changing Universe isn’t the Essential Existence. If the Existence of the Universe din’t cause the existence of change, then there must be an Essential Existence.
=> In all cases, the changing Universe can not be Essential Existence.
The Essential Existence is Singular. Otherwise for two (or more) Essential Existences & therefore mutually independent, if they are identical, then they are Singular, in case they aren’t identical then what caused the existence of change? It can’t be either of the two, thus there must be a third Essential Existence, & in that case, the two aren’t really Essential Existences, absurd!
The Essential Existence render existing what was priorly not. Therefore, explaining inductively (abductively) Existence is impossible, since the Law of Causality is invalidated: or every event A there is a NO - inductively - necessary event B, such that, if B then A.
Time’s up. Sorry :'( . . ;
It should be noted that Con, to deny my resolution, must disprove all of my arguments, for even if only one stands out, the resolution stands out too.
> Event: caused entity, or existent entity.
> Cause: a cause of an entity B is a necessary event A which which B isn’t an Event (as in caused entity).
> Efficient Cause: an efficient cause of an entity A is a necessary entity without which A isn’t an Event (as in existent entity).
> First Cause: uncaused Cause.
> If an entity has no cause, then it’s necessary.
> If an entity has a cause, then it’s contingent.
> Con tried to inductively falsify the existence of Fist Cause (or necessary existence) by applying my postulate on it, ignoring the fact that a First Cause is, by definition, not an Event, & thus does not obey inductive Causality. Which I clarified in R2 Argument 4.
> Con redefines the Universe, but since his definition is included in mine, it will not affect my reasoning.
Defence of: ‘The statement ‘God Exists’ is Deductively True’
> If Existence is contingent then all existent entities are -in essence- contingent, & thus not necessary. The Universe, ensemble of all existent entities, is therefore, either -in essence- contingent itself, or not contingent & thus necessary.
>> In case the Universe is not necessary then it has an external cause. Its cause can not be contingent, because otherwise it would be part of the Universe. Therefore, the cause is necessary.
=> Therefore, in all cases, Existence is necessary to itself, & thus there is a necessary existent or: a -essence- Essential (necessary, non-contingent) Existence.
- The -essence of the- Essential Existence is Singular, in the sense that it is: Unique & Simple.
> Suppose we have two essential existences, they are thus mutually independent. Both are either identical (one) or not.
>> In case they are not identical, then there exists a difference. The difference is either necessary, or not.
>>> In case it’s necessary (i.e has no cause), then it’s an essential existence itself, absurd!
>>> In case it isn’t, then it has a cause. The cause is either one of two essential existences or neither.
>>>> In case the cause is either, then one of the two will precede the other, & thus neither will be mutually independent, Absurd!
>>>> In case the cause is neither, then another entity is the cause for the difference, & thus neither are essentially existent, Absurd!
=> In all cases, two non-identical essential existences (or more) are Absurd!
==>> The -essence of the- Essential Existence is Singular (simple & unique).
*As per the definition of Efficient Cause, & the fact that it’s Singular, the Essential Existence is thus the Efficient First Cause, which I’ll be identifying with God.
> Model-1: In case the Attribute(s) is(are) the Essence itself:
>>> Then, particularly, the attribute of Will can not change, otherwise it would violate Singularity. & thus all existent entities -subsequent to the attribute of Will- are existent from necessity, because, in this case, Will & thus Essence is necessary & so is its effect.
>> The Will in this case must be absolutely Free, for it & the Essence are one, & thus unconditioned & unrestricted.
>> & so, whatever exists is not just possible but also necessary, not from within itself, but because of the necessary absolute Will of the Essential Existence. In contrast, whatever does not exist is not just contingent but also impossible.
>> & Thus, The Essential Existence has a Will that encompasses all that is ever possible.
>>> Will entails: Knowledge & Power. Since all attributes are essentially one, they are all, thus, identical.
=> Therefore, in this case, the Essential Existence has absolute Free Will, has Knowledge of all that ever exists, & has Power over all that ever exists.
>> Then all Attributes are separate from the Essence, though existent from necessity.
>> & so, everything contingent (not the Essential Existence) may exist or may not. Thus, prior to its existence, everything is equally inexistent. & therefore, the Will to attribute existence to the inexistent is absolutely Free, for all contingent entities (not yet willed into existence) are equally inexistent, there are no preferences.
>>> Subsequently, absolute Free Will entails absolute Power, for having the absolute choice of willing some contingent entities over others (prior to their existence) entails having the choice of willing all contingent entities, & thus having absolute Power.
>>> Moreover, absolute Free Will entails absolute Knowledge, for having the absolute power of choice from within equals having absolute Knowledge.
=> Therefore, in this case also, the Essential Existence has absolute Free Will, Knowledge of all that is ever possible, & Power over all is ever possible.
==>> The Singular Non-Contingent Essential Existence Uncaused Efficient First Cause is the One Creator (Originator), All-Powerful & All-Knowing, disjoint from all that exists. & thus appropriate for a definition of God.
Defence of: ‘the statement ‘God Exists’ is Inductively True’
> The Law of Causality is inductively True, & thus events are consecutive.
> An infinite succession of non-identical consecutive events, states, entities. . . would be impossible, because otherwise, any event or state in such succession would be preceded by an infinity of them, & thus never becoming actualised.
> Thus, an actual infinite in space or time is impossible, for there is a strict order in both Time & Space, & thus consecutive events or states are non-identical. & we know the Universe is finite in space, for its mass is also finite.
=> Ref to Argument 2.
- Con claims that -inductive- Causality can only be possible under the Laws of Physics & the Arrow of Time, & he even adds Time, however, he does not prove his claim. He has to show that Time precedes causality, which is unlikely, because according to quantum theory causality exists even beyond the barrier of Planck (i.e. atemporal causal quantum phenomenons), which suggest that causality precedes time itself. Either way I don't see the point!
- Con abusively confuses non-Causality with indeterminism. While it’s a well know fact that Causality is incontestable in quantum physics. Actually, quantum field theory (Dirac’s Equation) states that if causality is True then antimatter must exist, which we can empirically verify (positron) .
- As far as Physics are concerned, causality is inductively True. & it’s proven through Thermodynamics (entropy), Quantum Mechanics (wave function collapse). . .
- In Special Relativity or even String Theory, causality is not violated either. The deterministic nature of SR does not allow effects to influence their causes, & so the arrow of Time is not violated.
- Con also claims that Causality is flat out false outside Time! I am interested in how Con can prove that. In contrast, it would be more rational to suggest causality outside the known Universe than to deny it, for if it’s true inside then maybe it’s true outside too. Again, I don't see the point.
- Con evokes the model of the Eternal Universe based on SR, however he does not prove it. While it’s an incomplete Theory & does not account for Quantum phenomenons.
>>> It should be noted that Con has to not just suggest another justifiable resolution other than my own, but he must falsify mine too, as to prove that my resolution is not rationally justifiable.
> If the Universe, in reality, conforms to the Quantum model (Probabilistic) then Argument 2 R2 proves the Essential Existence corresponding to Model-1.
> If the Universe, in reality, conforms with the SR model (Eternalistic) then, the Universe would be eternal in Spacetime, but that doesn’t say anything about the eternity of Spacetime itself.
>> If, then, the Spacetime is not necessarily existent, then it has a Cause, & thus falls under Model-2.
>> If the Spacetime is necessarily existent then it falls under Model-1.
=> Either way, God Exists, corresponding to either Model-1 or Model-2.
Defence of: ‘the Statement ‘God Exists’ is Empirically Unfalsifiable, though Rationally Expected.’
- God is the Uncaused Cause, & does not, thus, obey the Law of Causality, which then invalidates Abductive Reasoning. Because, Abductive Reasoning states: for every given fact, there is a sufficient, though not unique, possible plausible verifiable explanation. An Uncaused Cause is not an Event, it, by definition, does not have an explanation, & thus can not be empirically verifiable.
- God is Rationally Expected, because, the Universe either has an explanation or doesn’t. In case it does, then it corresponds to Model-2, in case it doesn’t then it corresponds to Model-1.
- I must confess, English is not my native language, & on top of that I have studied Philosophy in another language, & so it has been a bit of challenge to figure out which corresponds to which between my native language & English. I hope the voters would understand my position since I could be making semantical mistakes without even being aware of them.
- That been said, I will try to clarify more my core argument so as there won’t be any ambiguity. I would just like to add, Con defines necessary as ‘true in all possible world’, which deductively means: true in all cases, which I have proved. But then Con abusively uses this definition in its inductive sense, & tries to falsify my argument based on this dubious move!
> An entity that is existent spontaneously by itself, & thus without a cause, must be necessary, because otherwise, it would, by definition, be contingent. If that is so, the entity then may or may not exist & thus its existence potentially fails. & so the question rests: what is the agent of its existence, is it internal to it, or external to it? If the agent is internal to it, then the entity must exist necessarily, because then it wouldn’t fail to exist; but if the agent is external, the entity must thus be contingent.
=> Thus, Existence is either necessary or not (contingent).
> If Existence is contingent then all existent entities are contingent, & thus not necessary. The Universe (ensemble of all existent entities) is therefore, either contingent itself, or not contingent & thus necessary.
>> In case the Universe is not necessary then it has an external cause. Its cause can not be contingent, because otherwise it would be part of the Universe. Therefore, the cause is necessary, necessarily existent.
=> Therefore, in all cases, Existence is necessary. In other words, ‘There is a necessary existent’ is true in all cases, & thus True.
P1. ? ? ?
>>> Which I find very odd, because my reasoning (proof by cases) is equivalent to syllogism.
‘premise 2 is just a bare assertion, as his only defence is ‘otherwise it would not be’, this is not an argument.’
- Apparently Con hasn't read my R3!
‘To make things worse still, Pro is treating the notion of existence itself like an existing ‘thing’’
- There is no argument here! This is just semantics, whether Existence is a thing in itself or just an attribute doesn’t change anything in my argument. Which oddly Con confirms later: ‘existence is simply the difference between an essence that is actual, and one that is not actual’.
‘Pro makes an enormous jump between something being the ‘Essential Existance’ and something being the ‘First Cause’.’
- Here again Con insinuates inductive causality! The Essential Existence as I defined it is, by definition, the First Cause, there is nothing to prove here (ref. my definition of First Cause) -cause in the sense of existence- (since there is one Essential Existence, it must, by defintion, be the First Cause).
‘the universe for example is an essential existence, then the universe can just exist as-is necessarily, and causality would just be an emergent phenomena. There would be no ‘first cause’ any more than a triangle has a ‘first side’.’
- I am starting to wonder if Con ever read R3 or just jumped on R2 without doing so! Here again Con ignores the fact that I actually mentioned the case of the Universe being necessarily existent. & he once more confuses inductive causality with existence (which may be my fault after all, there might be more precise semantics I could’ve used but couldn’t find).
- & thus this supposition Con makes is already convered by my Argument.
‘Pro’s arguments against an eternal universe presuppose presentism. . . Pro has given absolutely no reason to believe Presentism is true.’
- Con again somehow ignores the fact that I did a proof by cases in R3, in which I supposed both Eternalism & Presentism & concluded in both cases that there exist a God (either according to Model-1 or Model-2). I did not presuppose that either are true. I presupposed however, & for good reason, that Causality is inductively True, & thus Presentism is a more consistent explanation, while Eternalism is not, because its based on SR which is incontestably an incomplete theory.
‘there is nothing any more absurd about there being infinite changes than there is an infinite number of integers’.
- Well, I agree, except there is this thing called Causality (or Arrow of Time), which imposes a beginning & consecutive finite successions. Besides, we know the Universe is finite in Time & in Space (as SR postulates). Hence my favouring the Presentist model.
- If Con wants to disprove my second statement: ‘Inductively True’ he has to prove that Eternalism is true while all else is false, or at least proves that Causality (or the Arrow of Time) is incoherent or illogical.
- Even in such case, one could easily argue that: if Eternalism based on SR is true, then all the Universe’s events are equally present, & thus, all the Universe’s event last, in the present, for 1 Plank Time, which says that the Universe actually lasted for 1 Plank Time. For, the Universe is only eternal within the Spacetime, which does not allow us to conclude on the eternity of Spacetime itself!
‘I could just assert they may be different just as a brute fact'
- Here Con provides no argument, as he has been doing so far!
- My Argument was simple: if the Essential Existence (EE) was not unique, then the answer to the question: why is it so? only leads to absurd conclusions.
- Asserting that there are two different EE as a brute fact, begs the question: where did the difference or the separation come from? & as I demonstrated (proof by cases), the answer to that question is absurd, which was made clear by Con right after his assertion: ‘remember an essential existence is not subject to causation, thus to speak of the causation of these is absurd.’
‘Pro gives no reason to believe that an essential existence, if coherent and true, has any causal power at all. Why it would indeed render the existence of the universe for example. Remember Pro explicitly defined causality to refer to ‘events’.’
- For the gazillion time, Con confuses the two definitions of causality, which I stated clearly in R3! I am officially sorry, I could not find another word for it.
- An Essential Existence had causal power in the sense that it is the agent that makes the difference between what is contingently existent & contingently non-existent. That is because, all else other than the Essential Existence is contingent & thus caused (made) to exist, & the cause of that as I demonstrated in Argument-0 is defined as the Essential Existence.
‘I can just assert the universe exists contingently as a brute fact, and it would be logically consistent. and it would refute the notion that an essential existence is the first cause.’
- Well, if the Universe (as I defined it) exists contingently then it must have been made to exist by the Essential Existence. & that’s exactly what I demonstrated in Argument-0, which again Con seems to ignore.
We can reject this entire argument simply by virtue that existence is not a ‘thing’ or an ‘it’. Thus existence is neither contingent nor necessary. Pro needs to clarify what he actually means by ‘existence’ here, as the argument is unintelligible.
- Semantics again! (a side I am not very well equipped with in Englih) But, fair enough, the way I studied it: Existence is either used as a Universal entity itself, or as an Attribute added to the Essence, which in real objects: existence would be identical to essence. Chose whichever works for you, either way the argument doesn’t change.
- This is not a debate on whether existence is an ‘it’ or not, this is a debate on the necessary existence of something (even if this something turns out to be Existence itself).
‘Pro has given absolutely no reason to believe this philosophy of descartian essentialism is sound. . . A concept of an object is simply just a description of an object, and an object exists without the additional baggage of ‘essence’. . . they only describe the state it is in ‘now’.’
- This is a Strawman Fallacy I was not expecting Con to use!
- None of this affects the Argument. The Argument is simply not conditioned by whether objects exist & have a Universal Essence, or are just particulars.
- This whole section is utterly obsolete.
‘Thus, we would need to expect very good reasons why an ‘essential existence that is the first cause’ is metaphysically coherent, but ‘an essential existence that is Australia shaped and orbits the moon’ is not.’
- Simple, make the difference between what is Universal & what is Particular, which in any case, doesn’t change my argument.
- The rest of Con’s Argument is no argument at all, in which Con trie to argue against R2 without accounting for R3.
Pro objects to my reducio on definitional grounds, however Pro defined ‘event’ in Round 2 as:
Pro gives two definitions in his opening:
Essence = Attribute through which an entity is itself, & without which it isn’t.
Even assuming Pro’s notion of existence as a property is coherent, his arguments still fail, since if the universe was uncaused (necessary, according to Pro’s loose definition), it doesn’t follow the universe is the first-cause because this would just be a fallacy of composition. All the components within the universe would be caused, but none of them would be caused by the universe itself. This is possible in self-contained causal networks for example. A simple case for be “A causes B which Causes C which causes A”. Thus each of the components of the conjunct “ABC” are caused, yet the conjuct “ABC” is itself uncaused, and the conjunct itself has no causal effect itself.
Pro drops my argument that all inductive claims (such as the law of causality) needs to presuppose the uniformity of nature to hold, which I argued is obviously not the case when talking about the physical universe (my definition) as a whole. Pro affirms exactly my point when he argues that causality holds in various physical environments, which may be true however… they’re physical! They are within all our universal construct with the laws of physics, time and time directionality. I have no idea how Pro can make such a monumentally massive assumption that the law of causality holds outside of any physical construct.
Pro misunderstands the point I was trying to make by arguing that indeterminism is logically consistent. I am arguing that there is no reason for us to accept the law of causality as something that holds at a fundamental level, one reason often posited is the principle of sufficient reason (PSR). However, in indeterminism the PSR doesn’t hold, as there is no reason for differential states (two uranium-238 atoms giving two different products in identical starting conditions).
Pro seems to confuse what I mean by eternalism, which is just an ontology of time, from which there are numerous sub-ontologies, such as the moving spotlight theory, etc. Thus Pro’s objections to it being incomplete and against QM are off-target (QM works just fine in such a construct anyway, cf. Quantum Eternity Theorum). Pro has given no reason to think eternalism is false, and it necessarily must be false otherwise Pro’s arguments are invalid because there is no genuine ‘change’ of the universe in eternalism (e.g. from non-being to being), which renders half of Pro’s arguments invalid, as they all do presuppose there is genuine change (argument 2, Inductive Defence, argument against actual infinites, etc.). He argues that the universe must have a beginning thus eternalism is false but this completely misunderstands what eternalism is. Eternalism is completely compatible with a finite (in time) universe, the universe’s beginning would be no more impressive than a ruler has an edge.
So far I have demonstrated that God is incoherent by both reducio ad absurdum, and attacking the notion of essential existence. Pro's arguments have been extremely vague, with numerous dubious presuppositions such as with what existance is, and if it can be predicated.
Although it’s probable that I may not have used some terms properly, which is justifiable by the fact that I haven’t learned them in English, semantics should matter less than the meaning behind them, & throughout my arguments I did define these terms accordingly to my use of them, & so regardless if these terms bear technical meanings elsewhere, in the context of my arguments they bear the definition that which I provided.
- This is how I defined causality in R1:
‘For every event A there is a - inductively - necessary event B, such that, if B then A.’
> The key word here being ‘inductively’.
- Following R2 - Argument4: ‘Explaining inductively Existence is impossible, since the Law of Causality is invalidated: for every event A there is NO event B, such that, if B then A.’
=> Existence based ‘causality’ (Efficient Cause of an existent entity) is inductively unfalsifiable, & thus does not obey the Law of Causality, in which case the definition of Cause & Event follows the one I gave in R3:
R3: Cause: a cause of an entity B is a necessary event A which which B isn’t an Event (as in caused entity).
=> & does not follow the definition of Efficient Cause which deals with Event as in existent entity:
R3: Efficient Cause: an efficient cause of an entity A is a necessary entity without which A isn’t an Event (as in existent entity).
=> Thus, Con’s reducio ad absurdum isn’t valid because it’s taken outside of its context, that is from being inductively falsifiable (caused entities) to what is inductively unfalsifiable.
- Con gives no arguments to doubt essentialism, he simply questions it! & the only problem Con raises is how to define existence, & not Existence itself. His argument is based on descriptivism which is supported by very few philosophers, & runs against serious problems when examined. 
- Also, in my line of reasoning, Existence is a coherent notion, for it’s attributed existent entities & not to inexistent entities, the paradigm with which descriptivism is not compatible.
- It’s also good to note that unless Con successfully falsifies my argument, it should stand. & arguing for alternate philosophical views without disproving my own should not stand, for my resolution is intended to prove what is Rationally Justifiable, & so as long as my view is rationally justifiable, regardless of the rationality of other alternate views, it will still be valid.
- That’s a false claim. I defined that which is caused to exist as caused, & which causes all entities to exist as Essential Existence. & that’s at the core of my Argument-0.
if we assume Platonic realism, then abstract objects such as numbers etc. also exist necessarily, yet they lack any causal agency.
- Too many assumptions with no arguments. Con is beating around the bush & not attacking my argument directly.
- Plus, numbers as abstracts exist only in the case where counting is possible, & thus in the case of the singular Essential Existence, numbers would not even exist as there is no count. & so, they are not necessary existent! Thus Con’s example is self-defeating.
"if the universe was uncaused it doesn’t follow the universe is the first-cause All the components within the universe would be caused, but none of them would be caused by the universe itself."
- Con uses an Ad Hoc argument (& I suspect unknowingly):
> First, he uses AGAIN, inductive causality, & not efficient causality (non-existence to existence). There are two definition, my ‘deductive argument’ uses efficient causality, my inductive argument uses inductive causality, it’s not that hard to keep track!
> Second, the Universe as the sum of existent entities is an entity itself, & thus, if Con wishes to use it, he has to define exactly the nature of the Universe, is it a simple sum of existent entities? or is it a set that is different from its components? Either way, my Argument-0 would not change, for I have argued for both cases whether the Universe is the Essential Existence, or not.
> Third, arriving at an absurd conclusion by supposing the Universe is the Essential Existence only leads to rejecting the supposition & NOT the Argument itself.
"I have no idea how Pro can make such a assumption that the law of causality holds outside of any physical construct."
- Con must have been imagining arguments I did not advance at all! I did not contest that Causality presupposes the uniformity of nature, which is EXACTLY like saying Causality is inductively true, I would contradict myself if I did such a thing.
- It’s up to Con to disprove of the Uniformity of Nature in order to disprove my inductive claim.
- Con is here again beating around the bush. I mentioned in R3 that there are atemporal quantum causal events which suggest that Causality may precede Time, & as I commented (in R3) right after: ‘Either way I don't see the point!’
- Con is trying to attack randomly anything I am saying without clear line of reasoning!
- Also, unless I am wrong, Con undeniably concedes to the -inductive- truth of Causality in this paragraph.
- That’s another Strawman Fallacy! Inductive Causality holds within the Universe, who said anything about it being true beyond the Universe!
- This is the xazillion time Con uses Causality (inductive) & extrapolate it to the other definition of Causality (efficient = made to exist), which make me suspicious of ulterior motives!
- Uncaused: (as defined) is NECESSARY EXISTENT. It’s a simple definition, Con is trying to use definitions other than my own to falsify mine! That’s absurd!
"no reason for us to accept the law of causality as something that holds at a fundamental level, one reason often posited is the principle of sufficient reason (PSR), in indeterminism the PSR doesn’t hold."
- Con makes an incoherent big claim without supporting it by correlating the validity of Causality with PSR.
- One notion that falsifies Con’s argument is the CPT symmetry, which is the most recent convention of Causality according to Quantum Physics. 
- Con is probably using some particular definition of Causality & forcing it on Quantum Phenomenons & then concluding on Causality in general. We’ll never know, because he hasn’t provided any explanation for his position.
- Yes, so what?! Con probably run out of arguments & resorted to some weird pointless manoeuvres to argue against something completely irrelevant to our subject. Don’t tell me you’re still hang between efficient & inductive causality, maybe somewhere else there is some correlation between them, but in this debate they are not the same thing.
- No such thing. Apparently Con forgot about argument, I demanded the explanation of the non-equality between these two essential existences, & not the essential existences themselves, which through proof by cases leads to absurd conclusions, because of the fact that these essential existences don't need a cause.
"Pro has given no reason to think eternalism is false, and it necessarily must be false otherwise Pro’s arguments are invalid because there is no genuine ‘change’ of the universe in eternalism (e.g. from non-being to being) which renders half of Pro’s arguments invalid"
- It’s up to Con to prove that Causality is false. I don’t particularly object to Eternalism, I object to Eternalism being the only truth, if indeed it was true, & Con provided no proof for such claim. Either way, my Argument will still be valid.
- My argument was not about the fact of finite events in Time, it’s about finite successive events in Time contained by Causality.
- & true Externalism may be compatible with a finite Universe, & that doesn’t say anything at all about it’s factual eternity, for outside Time, the Universe is inexistent. & even inside Time (not the flow of time, there is a big difference), the Universe could have lasted 1 plank time & no physicist would’ve noticed.
"Further, I gave reasons to believe eternalism is likely true from special relativity, however I do not need to prove this to show Pro’s arguments are unsound."
- I did my part of the BOP, it’s up to Con to contest my arguments. Just providing alternate likely explanations doesn’t affect my argument at all, for his explanation may be rationally justifiable as is mine, & thus my resolution stands.
- Con failed in every instance to falsify my arguments, & he either redefines my own definitions & attack them thereafter which is irrelevant, or proposes alternate explanations without disproving mine which does not affect my resolution ; or contradict himself by asserting at one point inductive Causality & denying it the next paragraph!
I thank Yassine for this debate.
Thusly we come to the end of this debate. I am somewhat frustrated by Pro’s case, which is riddled with poor precision in language, unsupported presuppositions, and definitions that change on a whim. Pro probably disagrees with this, but I will leave that much to the voters to decide. I feel a quote from Tim Hoare is an appropriate description of this debate:
“There are two ways of constructing a piece of software: One is to make it so simple that there are obviously no errors, and the other is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious errors.”
Good debating conduct, and philosophical conduct is to define all terms, especially controversial ones before one begins debating. Here we had Pro introducing definitions in round 3. I honestly don’t know what to say.
Reducio Ad Absurdum
Did Pro ever define what he meant by inductively in this debate> Even after I raised the point that inductive was clearly being used epistemologically (which is obviously the incorrect definition for Pro). Because as it stands, Pro has STILL yet to state why the law of causality applies to everything but God (the simple fact he’s defined as an uncaused cause does not get around this! It only helps affirm it!). Invalidating the Law of Causality is the same as falsifying the law of causality, this is only affirming the reducio.
Pro can define ‘cause’ and ‘efficient cause’ all he likes, it still doesn’t get around the fact that an ‘event’ is defined as an ‘existent entity’, which is what the law of causality requires.
Pro is trying to square the circle here, it just doesn’t work, a contradiction is a contradiction and Pro has done nothing to escape this simple fact. He even drops my point that God IS an event as defined, which was his first objection. If voters can see otherwise, then please by all means vote Pro and show me how my analysis here is incorrect.
If this argument succeeds, then Pro’s entire case goes out of the window.
It is now, in round 5, that Pro finally provides some support for his crucial presupposition of essentialism. Despite having 4 rounds to do so. I made 3 main points, and 3 sub-points against Cartesian Essentialism:
Given this presupposition is absolutely essential for Pro’s case to get anywhere, Pro failing this area undermines his entire case as I have continuously alluded to this debate.
Pro’s only arguments for essentialism are an argument from ignorance where he demands I prove essentialism false first, which is a blatant shifting of the burden of proof. Pro is making the necessary presupposition thus Pro needs to justify it. His other argument is an attack on descriptivism, which I do not necessarily need to advocate. Moreover he doesn’t actually attack descriptivism, he just asserts it. I also mentioned existentialism and existential nihilism in this debate, both are mutually incompatible with essentialism. Pro has made no attempt to show why we should prefer essentialism over other views. His arguments thus are already unsound.
Pro drops my arguments that essentialism is not parsimonious (it makes additional, unsupported, unnecessary assumptions). Thus fails Occam’s Rasor.
This point was hand-waved away by Pro as irrelevant, yet it is the most fundamental philosophy. Pro cannot hope to make claims about what existence is and whether it can be predicated or not in essentialism IF he doesn’t have the concept of ‘being’ worked out. If ‘being’ in principle cannot be conceptually encapsulated, then obviously it is impossible to predicate it.
Thusly, all of Pro’s arguments automatically fail at this domino.
Causal Power of Essential Existance
Pro has STILL made no argument that essential existence has any causal agency. Pro can’t simply ‘define powers’ to an essential existence. An essential existence only exists by it’s own nature (essence), that’s what essential existence means! It says absolutely nothing about it’s causal agency.
Just because an ‘essential existence’ itself is uncaused doesn’t mean that it is the only possible uncaused entity. Thus simply arguing all caused entities need a cause (duh), doesn’t follow that the essential existence IS the cause, or even can be in principle. I brought up Platonic realism as an example of such a case. Pro’s argument against it is to assert the essential existence would entail numbers do not exist… but that would only be the case IF numbers existed by their own essentially, which is not necessarily the case.
Necessary vs Contingent Existence
How the heck is it an ad hoc argument if I am showing a coherent set of conditions by which Pro’s reasoning fails> It doesn’t matter what notion of causality is used (I assumed inductive, and Pro has poorly defined the law of efficient causality), it is beside the point. I showed a coherent set of circumstances where:
Thusly, Pro’s assumption that IF the universe is necessary, then the universe is the first cause is false, because I have shown one set of circumstances where this doesn’t apply. Moreover, the universe is not necessarily an essential existence in this case. Furthermore, IF we assume the universe is an ‘essential existance’, then I showed a set of circumstances here where it is also not the ‘first cause’, despite grounding everything within the universe. The reason being is that all causes occur simultaneously (since there is no time). Thusly both Pro’s inductive and deductive arguments fail.
Uniformity of Nature
Pro ignores that quantum mechanics is a physical theory, which is predicated on nature existing. I didn’t address Pro’s quantum arguments since they weren’t made seriously (no evidence given either), but also just because it’s beyond the planck time (within the first tiny fraction of a second) does in no way show it works outside time! Being very early in time doesn’t mean you are no longer temporal!!!
Pro concedes exactly what I have been saying this entire debate:
“- That’s another Strawman Fallacy! Inductive Causality holds within the Universe, who said anything about it being true beyond the Universe!”
Exactly. My. Point.
Even if inductive causality holds within the universe, we have no reason to believe it holds outside of that context. Thusly all of Pro’s arguments about how the universe behaves outside of that context are invalid.
Thus, we have good reason to:
Thus, if the law of causality doesn’t hold for universe, then none of Pro’s arguments that necessitate a first cause are valid.
“No such thing. Apparently Con forgot about argument, I demanded the explanation of the non-equality between these two essential existences”
Pro ignores my argument, that he doesn’t have the right to demand an explanation of the non-equality because he conceded the (“inductive”) law of causality doesn’t hold. Thusly, all his reasons for the singularity of an essential existence fail.
Pro misunderstands the consequences of eternalism, which entails there is no objective ‘change’, and there is no objective ‘cause’ to the universe, and the universe itself doesn’t ‘cause’ anything itself. Thus both his deductive and inductive proofs fail.
Pro invents ad hoc arguments against an eternalism universe, such as “that doesn’t say anything at all about it’s factual eternity, for outside Time, the Universe is inexistent”. Pro hasn’t even attempted to show that ‘factually eternity’ is a metaphysically coherent notion. Let alone proven it.
The universe ‘existing for a planck time’ is an incoherent statement since the universe is the boundary of time in eternalism, that would be like saying the volume of the sphere that is outside of the surface of the sphere, it’s logically incoherent! The sphere… just is. It’s atemporal.
I am glad this debate is finally over. Pro’s case is like a series of dominos, all fo which must fall perfectly for his conclusions to follow. If one domino fails to fall, then they all fail to fall. Pro’s arguments are based on numerous dubious presuppositions regarding change, essentialism, the principles of causation. Most of his arguments run into semantic issues and thus voters should penalise them appropriately
Thanks Yassine for the debate, best of luck in the voting.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|